• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


ITAT: Reasons for Reassessment Can’t be Added, Deleted or Modified

Mumbai ITAT's Order for M/s. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) stated that the causes would have been recorded for opening the assessment again and is to be read since the same was recorded via the Assessing Officer and could not be increased.

The Assessing Officer, with a total income of Rs. 9,81,60,144 has fled assessment, since the taxpayer, M/s. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd has losses to show truly and fully material facts. The taxpayer has furnished complaints about the reopening of the assessment, which was discarded vide order on 10/11/2019.

Read also: Legal Solution for Assessment & Reassessment Notice U/S 148 for Assessee

The Assessing Officer vide order on 24/12/2019 has been filed under section 143 (3) r/w section 147 of the Act stated that the taxpayer losses to prove the creditworthiness and originality of the transaction with Silverson Logistics Private Ltd.

Kalyani Vincom Private Ltd, Assessing Officer stated that the funds were transferred from the stated entity to Highland Transport Private Ltd and Neelanchal Roadways Private Ltd, who in return has transferred Rs. 1,49,62,890 and Rs. 2,77,75,322 to the taxpayer’s company. In appeal CIT(A) vide impugned order sustained the assessment order both on jurisdiction and as per the merits.

It was clear from the record, it was only at the time of reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer alleged the transfer of funds from Kalyani Vincom Private Ltd within these two entities, which would nextly be transferred to the taxpayer.

A Coram consisting of Shri S Rifaur Rahman, accountant member, and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, judicial member set aside the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and the impugned order passed by the CIT(A), through upholding the order issued under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The taxpayer’s plea would be authorized.

Shri Piyush Chhajeda/w Shri Sumit Mantri represented the taxpayer and Shri Mehul Jain represented the revenue.

Case TitleM/s. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle
CitationITA No.574/Mum./2021
Date09/09/2022
Counsel for AppellantShri Piyush Chhajed, Shri Sumit Mantri
Counsel for RespondentShri Mehul Jain
Mumbai ITAT’s OrderRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Professionals

Super Tax Offer

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Big Offer for Tax Experts

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Genius Software